1 / 11

Yolo LAFCO Agricultural Conservation Policy

Yolo LAFCO Agricultural Conservation Policy. Yolo County Local Agency Formation Commission Commissioners  Public Member Olin Woods, Chair   County Member Matt Rexroad, Vice Chair   City Members Stephen Souza, Skip Davies  County Member Don Saylor  Alternate Commissioners

vivian
Télécharger la présentation

Yolo LAFCO Agricultural Conservation Policy

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Yolo LAFCO Agricultural Conservation Policy Yolo County Local Agency Formation Commission Commissioners  Public Member Olin Woods, Chair   County Member Matt Rexroad, Vice Chair   City Members Stephen Souza, Skip Davies  County Member Don Saylor  Alternate Commissioners  Public Member Robert Ramming  City Member Bill Kristoff  County Member Jim Provenza 

  2. Agriculture in Yolo • Over 85% of land in Yolo County is used for Agriculture • 92% of land is designated Agricultural or Open Space Land • 67% (450,000 acres) of ag land is in Williamson Act Contract • Over 88% of Yolo County’s residents live in one of four incorporated cities

  3. Yolo LAFCO Ag Conservation Policy • Established in 1994 • Implements Government Code Section 56377, which includes policies and priorities for open space and land conversion

  4. Policy: • Outlines the relationship of LAFCO laws, policies, factors and standards to ag protection • Communicates and clarifies the Commission’s purpose and conservation expectations • Establishes and implements a 1:1 acre agricultural mitigation ratio for prime land

  5. Standards for Easements: • Mitigation Land: • Character • Location • Participation • Vehicle • Land bank • In-lieu fee

  6. Case Study • Clark Pacific Reorganization • 247.7 acre proposal • 101.7 acres of prime agricultural land • Land left fallow for over five years

  7. Prime Land • Federal vs. State law and LAFCO policy • USDA policy: land that would otherwise be prime is classified as Class IV if not irrigated after five years • State/LAFCO Policy: land that qualifies, if irrigated, for Class I or II, whether or not it’s irrigated, provided that irrigation is feasible

  8. Initial Conclusion • Mitigation not required • Initially, did not find evidence of well • Overlying irrigation district could not extend water to site

  9. Irrigation Determined Feasible • Irrigation well located on property: • Out of service, but not abandoned • Capable of providing sufficient irrigation water to site • Could be repaired with modest investment • Used within last 10 years • In close proximity to, but disconnected from, electrical source

  10. Mitigation • Mitigation Banking • Developer purchased 282.37 acres of prime Class I ag land on two properties • Developer funded the acquisition, endowment, and transaction easements for the Yolo Land Trust • Developer used 101.7 acres to mitigate for project • City of Woodland used 40 acres to mitigate for annexation and development of a community center • Remaining 140 acres can be used as mitigation credits; one mitigation credit equals one acre

  11. Looking Ahead • Agriculture remains a strong priority in Yolo County • Challenges may include economic downturn and relaxation of requirements as way to encourage development • Overall, slower growth may protect agricultural land and force jurisdictions to rethink level and type of anticipated development

More Related